Yeah but solid shot damage depends on residual penetration. If they can barely pen, they barely deal damage.
The same would be true to APHE. The blast of most APHE rounds can just fracture the shell but wouldn’t result in fast moving fragments.
Yeah but solid shot damage depends on residual penetration. If they can barely pen, they barely deal damage.
Even on a 0° hit the ammo wouldn’t detonate.
The same would be true to APHE
If APHE explodes anywhere near the ammo it’s a guaranteed ammo explosion in almost all cases.
If the Mk7 had APHE the Panther would have been dead here.
And a direct side on would have produced a positive result. I have a lot of experience with both AP and APHE vehicles. Call it advice if you like.
Not for you, you know why, which is why I asked you.
As literally said in what you quoted, then further explained in the comments right above your own reply, you’re confusing realistic and historical.
You could build a new Maus to proper spec and have it fight an Abrams, ergo it’s not impossible,.merely improbable.
A crew member being hit directly by a tank shell was never the topic. The topic was doctrine / human factor elements like a tank being penned once and the crew deciding to bail, factors which are irrelevant to WT.
Are you… trying to argue K/D stats for a vehicle whose strengths are things that don’t show up in stats, and whose main weaknesses are firepower(!) and speed? Way to miss the point, again.
1 Like
Because the Churchill has far better armor.
75mm APHE brings a huge boost in killing power.
Just remember that the Jumbo used to be 4.7 as well.
The Churchill has significantly more armor than a Tiger or IS-1.
And yet the Tiger is 6.0 and the IS-1 is 5.7. clearly they should be brought down to 4.3 because they have worse armour.
I didn’t say anything about how their BRs are too high, didn’t I?
Because the Churchill has far better armor.
It’s mobility is comparable to a Maus.
Just remember that the Jumbo used to be 4.7 as well.
The Jumbo has 180mm of effective armor at the front and a tiny weakspot. The Churchill has 150mm effective (no you can’t angle the turret) and no stab. It’s also a lot bigger and much slower.
The Churchill has significantly more armor than a Tiger or IS-1.
Both the Tiger and the IS-1 have bad but trolly armor for their BR. They don’t sit at 5.7 for their armor but the mix of average armor, average firepower and average speed. They don’t have to rely on one of them that’s what makes them versatile vehicles at 5.7. The Mk7 only has good armor at 4.7 so of course it sits lower.
1 Like
It also has the worst gun performane of any vehicle because it’s stuck with solid shot that can barely penetrate vehicles at it’s BR, resulting in the worst possible solid shot damage.
And 38mm cast lower side hull that can be penetrated by a Ostwind with it’s 37mm.
I also just compared them to the Tiger an IS-1 armor wise, it’s not like I would put it at 5.7 just because of APHE.
But there is also the KV-85 and the German KV-1 C which are both 5.0 and a Churchill Mk VII with APHE is simply going to be more effective.
At 4.7 it will be. It’s very hard to destroy for vehicles below 4.7 but it was always held back by it’s damage output. There was practically no point in playing it an in uptier anyway.
As long as you play it at 5.0 and below it’s a great vehicle. Giving it APHE will make it much more effective, so it will go up in BR where it will more armored vehicles with stronger guns.
1 Like
And 38mm cast lower side hull that can be penetrated by a Ostwind with it’s 37mm.
Side armor is nowhere near as important as front armor. That being said the Jumbo has 152mm turret armor compared to 95mm on the Mk7 and that’s far more important than lower side hull.
But there is also the KV-85 and the German KV-1 C which are both 5.0 and a Churchill Mk VII with APHE is simply going to be more effective.
No it wouldn’t. The Mk7 can barely kill them frontally and they can outmaneuver the Churchill easily. Vs other tanks they are also more effective.
Churchill Mk.8? That’s a Mk.7 but with a 95mm howitzer, a variant with Mk.7 armour and the 6pdr never existed to my knowledge. There’s talk of the Mk.IX through XI but there’s next to no evidence they were ever built.
What we could get is the late Mk.III (Or Mk.IV) with it’s applique armour, giving it APDS and an extra 20-30mm on the turret face and hull sides, though it still wouldn’t deserve a higher BR than 4.3/4.7 IMO.
1 Like
The T-14 is much more vulnerable to German 75mm guns than the Churchill.
Also weaker guns are more capable to penetrating the T-14 compared to the Churchill.
Japaense 75mm also exist.
Ever looked at any other stat except armor?
It’s freaking immune from the front against any medium or heavy tank till the VK.
You know how rare that is for any vehicle?
There’s good armor but then there is god tier armor.
It’s not immune at all. USSR 76mm can easily pen the roof and USA 76mm/GER 75mm can pen the MG port. The vehicle the Mk7 is immune to are immune to the Mk7 as well.
1 Like
Irrelevant because “can” isn’t equal to “is going to happen”.
A Zero is never going to catch a P-51, but it can kill it when it gets close.
I think it takes more than a 50% penetration chance hitting the roof armor from 100m to talk like the Churchill has no effective armor.
What? Where did I say it had no effective armor?
500m is not a realistic distance for the russian 76mm. The Mk7 too can’t touch vehicles with that cannon at this distance.
I don’t know what your definition of “immune” is.
It’s about the ricochet chance not the range.
The current inert M61 we have now is the “concrete” one.
Missing M61 APHE has been reported several times, Gaijin have said no and it’s due to game balance. Which is incredibly disappointing. If someone else wants to report it again, go for it.